Second Roundup of Articles on the CDW Responses

As with the first roundup from a week ago, we publish this list without endorsing the content of any particular article. Once again, if you see that something important is missing, please shoot me an email so that I can either add it here, or hold on to it for the next roundup.

December 20, 2021

Larry Chapp, “Pope Francis vs. the Traditionalists: It was Never About the Liturgy” (Gaudium et Spes 22)

December 21, 2021

“Traditionis Custodes: New Instructions from the Vatican” (FSSPX.News)

Monika Rheinschmitt, “Assertions without reasons: A Statement in Protest of the CDW Responses from Pro Missa Tridentina” (Rorate Caeli)

Phil Lawler, “The Vatican’s one-way ticket to liturgical reform” (Catholic Culture)

Anthony Esolen, “The Mass and Our Unity” (The Catholic Thing)

David G. Bonagura, Jr., “The Death of Liturgy” (The Catholic Thing)

December 22, 2021

Gregory DiPippo, “Announcing the New Congregation for Monitoring Church Bulletins” (New Liturgical Movement)

Peter Kwasniewski, “Are Traditionalists Guilty of ‘Private Judgment’ Over the Popes?” (OnePeterFive)

Joseph Shaw, “The Latin Mass Society’s Canonical Notes on the Responsa ad dubia” (Rorate Caeli)

Latin Mass Society, “Some Notes on the Congregation for Divine Worship’s Responsa ad Dubia in light of Canon Law”

Fr John Hunwicke, “The Sacrament of Confirmation” (Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment)

Gregory Hillis, “I love Pope Francis’ commitment to dialogue—which is why his Latin Mass restrictions confuse me” (America)

Michael Fiedrowicz, “When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the flock must defend itself” (Rorate Caeli)

Roberto de Matti, “Motus in fine velocior (2): With a Divisive, Useless, and Unjust Persecution, the Francis Crisis is Gathering Even More Speed” (Rorate Caeli)

Interview: “Bishop Schneider on Latest Vatican Crackdown on Tradition” (The Remnant)

Phil Lawler, “The Liturgical Edsel” (Catholic Culture)

December 23, 2021

Joseph Shaw, “Responsa ad dubia: back to the future, forward to the past” (LMS Chairman)

Joseph Shaw, “Canonists cast doubt on the force of Responsa ad dubia on the Traditional Latin Mass” (Catholic Herald)

Damian Thompson, “Why the Catholic Chuch is facing chaos this Christmas” (The Spectator: audio file)

Fr. Timothy Ferguson, “‘Pomposity cannot stand ridicule’: A canon lawyer draws lessons from Communist history” (Rorate Caeli)

Edward Pentin, Interview: “Archbishop Roche on ‘Traditionis Custodes’ and Its Guidelines: ‘The Liturgical Possibilities Are in Place’” (Nat’l Catholic Register)

Michael Haynes, “Virginia diocese announces massive restrictions on traditional sacraments following Vatican crackdown” (LifeSite News)

Tom Seykora, “Catholic Fathers: A Call to Arms” (OnePeterFive)

Patrick Benedict, “Traditionis Custodes: The Very Latest Super Duper Update” (Remnant)

“A Christmas Message from the Prior of the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer” (Canticum Salomonis)

December 24, 2021

Fr. Christopher Basden, “What is behind the papal strangulation of the old Mass?” (Rorate Caeli) [Excellent!]

Fr. John Hunwicke, “You Need to Read This Stuff” (Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment)

Rev. Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignières, “A Christmas Message from the Prior: On the Subject of the Motu Proprio” (Rorate Caeli; original dated Dec. 23)

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, “Ed Pentin interviewed the Prefect of the CDW about Traditionis custodes and the Dubious Dubia” (Fr. Z’s Blog)

December 26, 2021

“Cri de Coeur: I feel like I have become an ‘undocumented Catholic’” (Fr. Z’s Blog)

“At St Germain (France), Catholics celebrate Christmas before the closed doors of a church because of the obstinate will of Pope Francis” (Rorate Caeli)

Christophe Geffroy, “Never before has the Church seen such a malicious treatment of a movement within it” (Rorate Caeli)

December 27, 2021

Fr. John Hunwicke, “Egeneto de en tais hemerais ekeinais...” (Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment)

Fr. Laurent-Marie Pocquet du Haut Jussé, “Very Instructive Paradoxes” (Rorate Caeli) [Excellent!]

Joseph Shaw, “Responsa ad dubia: good news on private Masses” (LMS Chairman)

Sr. Bernadette Mary Reis, “Cardinal Blase Cupich publishes policy implementing Traditionis custodes” (Vatican News)

Peter Kwasniewski, “Cardinal Cupich’s Chicago Template: The Vatican-endorsed Litmus Test” (Rorate Caeli)

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, “Archdiocese of Chicago drops the axe on more than the Traditional Latin Mass” (Fr. Z's Blog)

Michael Charlier, “Francis Has Already Lost” (Rorate Caeli, originally published Dec. 16, so prior to the Responsa, but still highly relevant)

Martin Mosebach, “What if Rome no longer wants to be Roman?”: Interview (Rorate Caeli)

First Roundup of Responses to the CDW’s Responsa Ad Dubia

The long-awaited Responsa are out, serving as a kind of application instruction for Traditionis Custodes, and everything you need to know about them is summed up by one fact to which I would draw the reader’s attention. The cover letter to the Responsa Ad Dubia says:

“It is sad to see how the deepest bond of unity, the sharing in the one Bread broken which is His Body offered so that all may be one (cf. Jhn 17:21), becomes a cause for division. It is the duty of the Bishops, cum Petro et sub Petro, to safeguard communion, which, as the Apostle Paul reminds us (cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34), is a necessary condition for being able to participate at the Eucharistic table.”

Isn’t it the height of irony to find 1 Corinthians 11, 17-34 cited in support of this latest assault on Tradition, when verses 27-29 are nowhere to be found in the new lectionary, with its supposedly “richer fare” of Scripture? (They are read multiple times each year in the old rite.)

“Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.”

Yes, in some ways richer fare from the Bible, but also different fare. And that is symbolic of this entire moment of crisis: different rites, with different theologies — an untenable situation finally coming to a head.

Commentary began to appear on Saturday, the day the text from the Congregation for Divine Worship was released to the public (although apparently it was approved a month before; presumably its release was delayed till a week before Christmas in order to guarantee feelings of comfort and joy). The reactions gathered here are not listed in the exact order in which they were published. I have deliberately left out mere news items and cheerleading from the hyperpapalist faction, in which I have not yet found anything of theological substance, just plenty of posturing and bullying. As usual, listing any article here does not imply agreeing with everything that its author says. We would, however, particularly recommend reading Fr. Gerald Murray’s piece.

If I have missed anything you found valuable, or if I have mistaken the dates of any of these pieces, please send me an email using the address in the sidebar.  — PAK

DECEMBER 18 

Eric Sammons, “The Spiritual Abuse Continues” (Crisis Magazine)

Fr. Claude Barthe, “Resisting an unjust liturgical law” (Rorate Caeli)

Gregory DiPippo, “The Last Stand of the Brezhnev Papacy” (New Liturgical Movement)

Peter Kwasniewski, “A Supreme Moment of Decision, Courtesy of ‘Divine Worship’” (OnePeterFive)

Matthew Hazell, “A ‘Revolution of Tenderness,’ or ‘The Roche Christmas Massacre’: A Farce in Eleven Dubia” (Rorate Caeli)

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, “Additional Notes from @FatherZ on the Dubious Dubia concerning ‘Traditionis custodes’”

Press Release from Coalition for Canceled Priests: “Response to Bergoglio’s Christmas Massacre”

Rod Dreher, “Pope Francis, Ever The Iconoclast” (American Conservative) [Since Dreher in this piece quoted a friend who compared me (and by implication traditionalists in general) to Martin Luther, I wrote a refutation, which Dreher subsequently incorporated into his post.]

Brian McCall, “The Second Atomic Bomb Has Exploded: CDW Issues Directives Banning Traditional Confirmations and Ordinations, Decrees the End of Ecclesia Dei Communities” (Catholic Family News)

Michael Matt, “Pope of Mercy Restricts Traditional Sacraments, Bans Traditional Confirmations & Ordinations Without Exception” (The Remnant)

Caminante Wanderer, “Traditional Catholics: Exceptions to ‘Synodality’” (Rorate Caeli)

Phillip Campbell, “Pope Denethor: Reflections on the CDW Responsa” (Unam Sanctam Catholicam) [Incisive commentary on the many absurdities and impossibilities contained in the Responsa, such as its attempt to abrogate liturgical books by reference to a place in TC that says no such thing.]

Fr. John Hunwicke, “Nastier and Nastier”  (Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment) [Close analysis of the text and some of its key provisions—intended to tighten up loopholes in TC.]

Chris Ferrara, “A Schismatic Pope?” (The Remnant)

Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille, "Opinion: Let a thousand rites bloom and flourish!"

Shawn Tribe, Comment at the Facebook Group “Defense of the Immemorial Roman Rite: Traditionis Custodes v. Summorum Pontificum”

Amy Wellborn, “Things that might not make sense” (Charlotte Was Both)

“Vatican answers the dubia on ‘Traditionis custodes’ – Here’s what it means” (The Pillar)

Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, Statement on the Dec. 18th Document from the CDW


DECEMBER 19, 2021

Latin Mass Society of England & Wales, “LMS’s initial response to the Responsa ad dubia”

Christopher R. Altieri, “Trying to make some sense of the responsa ad dubia” (Catholic World Report)

“An Eastern Catholic Priest on the Recent Vatican Document” (Rorate Caeli)

Chris Jackson, “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas”

Fr. Dana Christensen, “Lawlessness, Part II” (A Living Sacrifice)

“How to Write Your Own Dubia” (Eccles is saved)

Rob Marco, “Why Faith Is Like A Marriage, and Why I Hold Out Hope For It” (Pater Familias)

“An Eastern Catholic Priest on the Recent Vatican Document” (Rorate Caeli)


DECEMBER 20, 2021

Fr. Gerald Murray, “The Cruel and Incoherent Further Restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass” (The Catholic Thing) [To my mind, this is the best thing written so far, on the whole]

Kennedy Hall, “Trust Your Catholic Sense” (Crisis Magazine)

Joseph Shaw, “A Small Difficulty with the Responsa” (Rorate Caeli)

Stuart Chessman, “Responses to the Dubia” (The Society of St. Hugh of Cluny) [Excellent!]

Maike Hickson, “‘From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War’ will help Catholics fight for the soul of the Church” (LifeSite News)

Ken Wolfe, “Suppression Has Consequences” (Rorate Caeli)

Michael Brendan Dougherty, “The Pope’s Vindictive Campaign against the Latin Mass” (National Review)

Phil Lawler, "Who denies the Novus Ordo is valid? Prepare for a surprise" (Catholic Culture)

Ed Condon, "Roche's Rules: Does the new Extraordinary Form instruction line up with Vatican II?" (The Pillar)

Steve Ray, "Vatican Further Represses the Latin Mass and Sacramental Rites" (Defenders of the Catholic Faith)

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, "Another Note on the Dubious Dubia™ concerning Traditionis custodes" (Fr. Z's Blog)


DECEMBER 21, 2021

Fr. Richard Cipolla, "Dear Archbishop Roche: The Attempt to Cancel Tradition is doomed to failure" (Rorate Caeli)

Sean McClinch, "It’s Time to Occupy the Churches" (OnePeterFive) [Excellent! The spirit we need to have.]

The Parish Low Mass Is Not a “Silent” Mass: The Rubrics on Clara Voce

Last Pentecost octave, I happened to be visiting a big city and decided to go to a nearby Latin Mass on the Ember Friday. I invited two acquaintances to come with me.

I was surprised when Mass began and I could hear nothing of the dialogue of priests and servers. “Perhaps this is just —  for some reason — how they do the prayers at the foot of the altar,” I thought to myself. The priest mounted the steps and went to the missal to recite the Introit. Again, total silence. My bewilderment turned to frustration and disappointment as the entire Mass continued, with hardly a single word of it being audible. The only thing recited clara voce was the “Domine, non sum dignus” before the communion of the faithful.

Since I was traveling, I did not have my St. Andrew’s Daily Missal with me, and my two guests, who are not regular attendees, had no access to the propers either. I wasn’t expecting this lack of a missal to be a problem, as I can follow the Latin to a great extent if I can just hear the words. Hearing nothing, I was simply watching a priest say his private Mass. The motions are beautiful and the silence is prayerful, but I still felt deprived of access to the parts of the Mass that the Church intends the faithful to hear. Aside from verbal comprehension (which, I recognize, is often overrated nowadays), it is comforting to hear the Latin words floating through the church at the appropriate times. There is benefit in hearing the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, and the Agnus Dei.

Evidently my guests felt a similar perplexity, since they both said to me afterwards at breakfast: “Is the old Mass always so completely silent?” I had to respond: “No, it’s not supposed to be. When I attend Mass elsewhere — with the Fraternity of St. Peter, or the Institute of Christ the King, or a diocesan priest — one can hear most of the Mass of the Catechumens, and some parts of the Mass of the Faithful.”

The rubrics of the usus antiquior stipulate unambiguously which parts of the Proper and Ordinary of the Mass are to be recited in an elevated tone of voice. The Rubricae generales Missalis, c. XVI, ‘De his quae clara voce, aut secreto dicenda sunt in Missa,’ reads as follows (my translation):

In a private Mass the following are to be said clara voce: the antiphon and psalm before the Introit, the Confession and that which follows (except Aufer a nobis and Oramus te); again, the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Dominus vobiscum, Oremus, Flectamus genua, Levate, Collect or Collects, Prophecy, Epistle, Gradual, Alleluia, Tract, Sequence, Gospel, Creed, Offertory antiphon, Orate fratres (just those two words), Preface, Nobis quoque peccatoribus (just those three words), Per omnia &c. with Pater noster, Per omnia &c. with Pax Domini, Agnus Dei, Domine non sum dignus (just those four words), Communion antiphon, Postcommunion or Postcommunions, Humiliate capita, Ite missa est or Benedicamus Domino or Requiescat in pace, Blessing, and Last Gospel or other Gospel. All the rest is to be said secreto.

Of great interest is the next paragraph, which specifies that clara voce means spoken in such a way that those around may hear and follow:

The priest ought to take the utmost care that things which are to be said clara voce are pronounced distinctly and appropriately — not very quickly, so that he can pay attention to what he reads, nor exceedingly slowly, lest the listeners be afflicted with tedium; neither with a voice excessively raised, lest others be disturbed who perhaps might be offering Mass in the same church at the same time, nor with one that is too faint [submissa], lest those gathered around be not able to hear, but in a moderate and earnest tone, that it may both stir up devotion and be accommodated to the listeners that they may understand what is read. Those things, on the other hand, which are to be said secreto should be pronounced in such a way that only the priest himself may hear them, and they are not heard by those gathered around.

The “marching orders” contained in this rubric, however flowery its expression, are not especially hard to grasp and put into practice. While it is true that some churches are so vast that even a priest speaking clara voce might not be able to be heard or understood by those sitting far away, I have found that it depends not so much on the size of a church but on its the architecture, and on such factors as whether the heating or air conditioning is blowing, or fans are running, or other ambient noise is coming in. At the church I visited on Ember Friday, it was not difficult to hear the priest when he did speak up. Despite the great volume of space, the Latin was perfectly comprehensible; the acoustics would be excellent for a Missa recitata or Missa lecta.

Low Mass at a side chapel of Clear Creek

It seems to me important to recognize an unofficial distinction not discussed in the rubrics. There is a difference between a publicly scheduled Mass offered at the high altar in the expected presence of a congregation of people, and a “private” Mass of a monk at a side altar in a monastery, adjacent to a dozen other monks simultaneously offering Masses. At Clear Creek, Le Barroux, Norcia, Silverstream, and other such places, those whispered early morning Masses — with the faithful seldom more than a few feet away from their chosen side chapel — seem like quite a different affair from a parochial Mass at a high altar in the main church, with the circumstantes standing dozens or possibly hundreds of feet away. The latter scenario demands more care on the part of the priest to ensure that the audible parts are indeed audible.

In the end, I was grateful to be able to assist at Holy Mass during the Pentecost octave, immerse myself in prayer, and rejoice in the beauty of God’s house; I was even more grateful to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. Nevertheless, it disturbed me to be cut off from the antiphons, orations, and readings that Holy Mother Church wishes the faithful to be able to hear with their ears. It seems to me that priests, if any may have fallen into bad habits in this regard, ought to bear in mind that speaking those parts of the Proper and Ordinary clara voce, as specified in the rubrics, is a way of showing respect and consideration to the faithful who come to church to drink from the greatest source of prayer we enjoy as Catholics: the sacred liturgy.

Visit www.peterkwasniewski.com for articles, sacred music, and classics reprinted by Os Justi Press (e.g., Benson, Scheeben, Parsch, Guardini, Chaignon, Leen).

Two Modest Proposals for Improving the Prayerfulness of Low Mass

With the increasing number of Masses offered in the usus antiquior, it is fair to say that Catholics are experiencing some of the same problems that were pointed to as reasons for the liturgical reform prior to the Council. While the list of such problems is lengthy, none of them in fact justified the liturgical reform as it actually played out. Nevertheless one would hope that the traditional movement could learn from past mistakes and make a special effort to avoid the same in the current fraught ecclesiastical situation. Since the manner of carrying out the Mass redounds immediately to either the edification and devotion of the priest and people or to their distraction and frustration, it behooves us to take it seriously. For indeed, nothing could be more serious than the sacramental re-presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

In this article I will look at two of the most common problems: nearly inaudible, inarticulate muttering of servers at Low Mass, and rapid-fire delivery of the Latin prayers by the priest, as if he were in a race against time.

The Dialogue Between Priest and Servers

While it would be ideal to have liturgy served by clerics in minor orders, religious brothers, or seminarians, most of the time, as we know, Catholics have recourse to “altar boys” filling in for acolytes. And I have no complaint about the institution of altar boys as such, provided they are tall enough and serious enough to fulfill their functions in the sanctuary.

However, as we learn from the High Mass, which is the real template of the Low Mass, the servers are making responses on behalf of the entire body of the faithful. At High Mass, we all sing “Et cum spiritu tuo,” and at Low Mass (I am purposefully not discussing the dialogue Mass in this article) the servers speak the same words in our place. Moreover, as the Roman Rite has developed, the preparatory prayers or prayers at the foot of the altar have ceased to be purely private prayers for the priest and ministers; they have come to belong to the faithful, too, who treasure them, follow them in their missals or from memory, and wish to hear them at Low Mass. As if in tacit acknowledgment of this fact, nearly all of the priests whose Masses I have heard over the past 30 years utter Psalm 42 and the additional prayers prior to the “Aufer a nobis” with a level of voice that can readily be heard throughout the church.

It is therefore asymmetrical and irritating when the servers mumble, swallow, or whisper their responses to the priest’s well-articulated phrases. It is the liturgical equivalent to someone walking with one normal leg and one peg-leg. Here is how it comes across to the faithful in the pews:

Priest. In nómine Patris, et Fílii, + et Spíritus Sancti. Amen. Introíbo ad altáre Dei. 
Servers. Ad Deum qui lætíficat juventútem meam.
P. Júdica me, Deus, et discérne causam meam de gente non sancta: ab hómine iníquo, et dolóso érue me.
S. Quia tu es, Deus, fortitúdo mea: quare me repulísti, et quare tristis incédo, dum afflígit me inimícus?
P. Emítte lucem tuam, et veritátem tuam: ipsa me deduxérunt, et aduxérunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernácula tua.
S. Et introíbo ad altáre Dei: ad Deum qui lætíficat juventútem meam.
P. Confitébor tibi in cíthara, Deus, Deus meus: quare tristis es, ánima mea, et quare contúrbas me?
S. Spera in Deo, quóniam adhuc confitébor illi: salutáre vultus mei, et Deus meus.
P. Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto.
S. Sicut erat in princípio et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculórum. Amen.
P. Introíbo ad altáre Dei.
S. Ad Deum qui lætíficat juventútem meam.
P. Adjutórium nostrum + in nómine Dómini.
S. Qui fecit cælum et terram.

And so forth, throughout the liturgy. The dialogue is often so unequal that the priest might as well be the only one speaking, in a bizarre vivisected conversation, somewhat like overhearing a telephone call. If the servers are representing us at the foot of the altar, they are doing a poor job of it. Why don’t they speak up a bit — “enunciate and articulate!,” as my high school rhetoric teacher used to say? Again, this is not about using a loud voice. It is simply about using a normal audible voice and not rushing through the words. They are, after all, prayers, and prayers are worth praying. Deo gratias after the Epistle should sound like it means “Thanks be to God!,” and the same with Laus tibi, Christe.

Am I asking too much of these cute and sometimes clueless boys? No. I believe that those who train altar boys should teach them what the words mean, and teach them how to enunciate them and articulate them at a normal volume and a walking, not running, pace. Not:

P. Kyrie eleison.
S. Kyrie eleison.
P. Kyrie eleison.
S. Christe eleison.
P. Christe eleison.
S. Christe eleison.
P. Kyrie eleison.
S. Kyrie eleison.
P. Kyrie eleison.

Above all, at the end of the Offertory, these words should be distinct and audible at Low Mass:

Suscípiat Dóminus sacrifícium de mánibus tuis ad laudem et glóriam nóminis sui, ad utilitátem quoque nostram, totiúsque Ecclésiæ suæ sanctæ.

And moving into the Preface dialogue, it is totally unfitting to hear the following:

P. …per omnia saecula saeculorum.
S. Amen.
P. Dóminus vobíscum.
S. Et cum spíritu tuo.
P. Sursum corda.
S. Habémus ad Dóminum.
P. Grátias agámus Dómino Deo nostro.
S. Dignum et justum est.

The priest is inviting us, in one of the most beautiful phrases of the Roman liturgy, to “Lift your hearts on high!,” and the response should be in earnest: “We have lifted [them] up to the Lord!” Then, in a phrase rich with Eucharistic meaning: “Let us give thanks unto the Lord our God.” To which the response must be equally meaningful, as if the servers are senators speaking for a holy nation: “It is worthy and just.” These are not phrases to be rattled off under one’s breath; they are to be sounded forth in public.

The inaudibility of the servers, the disharmony it creates with the priest, and the lack of “purchase” it offers the congregation are matters that deserve to be taken seriously by the adult trainers who prepare the servers and the MCs who regulate the teams. This is not a difficult problem to correct, but it does require awareness, attentiveness, and follow-through, together with positive reinforcement (“Johnny, it was great how you spoke your responses so clearly today. Keep it up!”)

Haste in Clerical Recitation of Texts

A related matter of concern is the post-Summorum reappearance of clergy who habitually rush through the Low Mass. As far as I can tell, we are dealing in most cases with genuinely devout men who intend no disrespect to Our Lord and no disedification to the faithful. Nevertheless, machine-gun Latin —

Paternoster,quiesincælis:Sanctificéturnomentuum:Advéniatregnumtuum:Fiatvolúntastua,sicutincælo,etinterra.Panemnostrumquotidiánumdanobishódie:Etdimíttenobisdébitanostra,sicutetnosdimíttimusdebitóribusnostris.Etnenosindúcasintentatiónem.

AgnusDei,quitollispeccátamundi:miserérenobis.AgnusDei,quitollispeccátamundi:miserérenobis.AgnusDei,quitollispeccátamundi:donanobispacem.

Dómine,nonsumdignus,utintressubtectummeum:sedtantumdicverbo,etsanábituránimamea.Dómine,nonsumdignus,utintressubtectummeum:sedtantumdicverbo,etsanábituránimamea.Dómine,nonsumdignus,utintressubtectummeum:sedtantumdicverbo,etsanábituránimamea.

— does not carry any conviction of being speech truly addressed to the face of a living Person with whom one is communicating, as two friends would talk to one another, nor, for this reason, can it in fact increase the devotion of the speaker or of the listeners. It seems, on the contrary, to be a lost opportunity on the part of both priest and people for the intensification of acts of adoration, faith, humility, contrition, and other virtues. In spite of the daily repetition of the Mass, we could truthfully apply to its celebration the familiar words of the Quaker who said: “I shall pass this way but once; any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.” This particular Mass will never be repeated, nor will this particular congregation assist at it. And as we know from the dogmatic theologians, the subjective devotion of the priest and of the people have a role to play in the spiritual fruitfulness of the Mass.

Perhaps the most germane statement made on this subject is St Francis de Sales’s: “Beware of it [haste], for it is a deadly enemy of true devotion; and anything done with precipitation is never done well. Let us go slowly, for if we do but keep advancing we shall thus go far.”

Dom Chautard, author of The Soul of the Apostolate — one of the few truly essential spiritual books written in the past century — has a lot to say on this subject. The author spends several pages unpacking the meaning of the prayer said before the Divine Office, in which the cleric asks for the grace to recite it digne, attente, devote, worthily, attentively, devoutly:

DIGNE. A respectful position and bearing, the precise pronunciation of the words, slowing down over the more important parts. Careful observance of the rubrics. My tone of voice, the way in which I make signs of the Cross, genuflections, etc.; my body itself: all will go to show not only that I know Whom I am addressing, and what I am saying, but also that my heart is in what I am doing. What an apostolate I can sometimes exercise [this way]! …

DEVOTE. This is the most important point. Everything comes back to the need of making our Office and all our liturgical functions acts of piety, and, consequently, acts that come from the heart. “Haste kills all devotion.” Such is the principle laid down by St. Francis de Sales in talking of the Breviary, and it applies a fortiori to the Mass, Hence. I shall make it a hard and fast rule to devote around half an hour to my Mass in order to ensure a devout recitation not only of the Canon but of all the other parts as well. I shall reject without pity all pretexts for getting through this, the principal act of my day, in a hurry. If I have the habit of mutilating certain words or ceremonies, I shall apply myself, and go over these faulty places very slowly and carefully, even exaggerating my exactitude for a while.
          Fill my heart with detestation for all haste in those things where I stand in Your place, or act in the name of the Church! Fill me with the conviction that haste paralyzes that great Sacramental, the Liturgy, and makes impossible that spirit of prayer without which, no matter how zealous a priest I may appear to be on the outside, I would be lukewarm, or perhaps worse, in Your estimation. Burn into my inmost heart those words so full of terror: “Cursed be he that doth the work of God deceitfully” (Jer 48:10).

Another classic text, The Hidden Treasure by Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, counsels the priest in the following words:

Use all diligence to celebrate with the utmost modesty, recollection, and care, taking time to pronounce well and distinctly every word, and perfectly to fulfill every ceremony with due propriety and gravity; for words ill articulated, or spoken without a tone of meekness and awe, and ceremonies done without decorum and accuracy, render the divine service, instead of a help to piety and religion, a source of distress and scandal. Let the priest keep the inner man devoutly recollected; let him think of the sense of all the words which he articulates, dwelling on their sense and spirit, and making throughout internal efforts corresponding to their holy suggestions. Then truly will there be an influx of great devotion into those assisting, and he will obtain the utmost profit for his own soul.

There is no question that a reverent Low Mass Mass can be offered in 30 minutes by a priest whose Latin flows well, who is extremely adept at the ceremonies, and who knows many of the prayers by heart. It is also true that sometimes Low Mass takes longer than it should because the celebrant is still learning the ropes and has not yet “mastered” the liturgical form. But regardless of the total duration, any appearance of rushing in words or gestures is never edifying and always detracts from the dignity and beauty of the celebration — and consequently from the prayerfulness it is meant to induce as well as the spiritual fruit likely to be derived from it.

Little things make a difference in the spiritual life; why would it not be the same in the greatest act of worship we can offer to God, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? For a long time Catholics have fought simply to have access to the old Mass, an immense reservoir of grace, doctrine, and godly piety. We should not stop fighting for that access if we do not yet enjoy it, but now that we are some years down the road from the Mass’s reintroduction on a wider scale, it is time to correct the bad habits into which we may have inadvertently slid.

Some may be wondering: Can we possibly concern ourselves with such matters when the Church on earth seems to be falling apart in front of our very eyes? My view, however, is quite the opposite. This crisis we are living is a crisis of worldliness, of lukewarmness, infidelity, and apostasy. The ultimate solution to it is not investigations (however necessary), proclamations of doom and hand-wringing (however correct and satisfying), or a flurry of activism (however tempting). The solution begins and ends with drawing near to the Father and joining with the citizens of the fatherland. Now is the very best time to attend to the service of Almighty God in His holy sanctuary and to do what is right, because it is right, for the love and glory of God.